The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Department for Employment and Learning Bill: Final Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Department for Employment and Learning Bill (NIA 12/00) do now pass.
Members are familiar with the purpose of the Bill and the reasons behind it, therefore I do not propose to rehearse those reasons in any detail.
The effect of the Bill is to afford my Department a shorter and more practical title that continues to represent its key business areas. The Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and I agree that the title ‘Department for Employment and Learning’ meets all of those criteria. I have assured Members that the costs of implementing the change are not significant.
As we approach the end of the current session, I would like to record my thanks to the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. This is possibly the last time that I will refer to them with that lengthy and cumbersome title. I thank the Committee and its staff for their work throughout what has been a busy and challenging year, during which we found ourselves on a steep learning curve. I trust that under our new title the working relationship that we have established with the Committee will continue and be enhanced.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I am glad to rise for what I hope, as the Minister said, will be the last time that I will be the called the Chairperson of the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. The Committee supports the Bill. It will lead to a more appropriate title for the Department and one that will be easier to remember. At Further Consideration Stage, I said that the Committee considered a variety of names for the Department. We are glad that the Minister took on board the recommendation to change the name to the Department for Employment and Learning, which can be shortened to DEL. We are heartened that the press has welcomed the new title for this important Department. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Bill will complete its Final Stage before the summer recess.
I acknowledge the work of the Minister and his officials in speedily progressing the matter to ensure that the Bill was completed in time. Simply changing the name of the Department will not create a job for anyone who is currently unemployed and will not put anyone on a training scheme. However, it is important that we get the matter right and clear the decks for future work. It is to be hoped that we can turn to that work as the Department for Employment and Learning.

Dr Sean Farren: I acknowledge the compliments and the support of the Chairperson of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Department for Employment and Learning Bill (NIA 12/00) do now pass.

Product Liability (Amendment) Bill: Final Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That the Product Liability (Amendment) Bill (NIA 13/00) do now pass.
I will keep my remarks brief, not least because a Whip has asked me to do so.
The Bill has passed through the various Stages of scrutiny, and there is a consensus and understanding that it is necessary to give effect to a European obligation. Some Members made the point that on the face of it the Bill imposes a theoretical additional liability on farmers and others at an unfortunate time. The Agriculture and Rural Development Committee also registered that concern. The Bill will be of longer-term benefit to such groups, as it will represent a small but significant step in restoring public confidence in food safety. Consumer groups and producers have noted that and welcome the measure. There have been no reported difficulties for farming communities in other European countries that have this legislation in force.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Product Liability (Amendment) Bill (NIA 13/00) do now pass.

Budget (No 2) Bill: Final Stage

Mr Mark Durkan: I beg to move
That the Budget (No 2) Bill (NIA 17/00) do now pass.

Mr Speaker: I remind Members that a vote on a Budget Bill requires cross-community support, and I will apply the usual established conventions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Budget (No 2) Bill (NIA 17/00) do now pass.

Child Protection

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Ministers responsible for the protection of children, in view of the anomalies in the current vetting system, to take the necessary interim steps to improve the position on vetting those suitable to work with children.
The Assembly has given priority to child protection, and it is an issue that unites politicians from all parties. It is appropriate that the motion is being debated today, with the recent report released by Barnardo’s on child prostitution and the targeting and grooming of young boys by paedophiles. It is widely accepted that we have unacceptably high levels of child abuse in Northern Ireland. That can be directly and indirectly related to the lack of investment, insufficient political direction during direct rule and poorly thought-out policy development that did not join up government.
One of the first pieces of legislation proposed by the Executive in September 2000 was the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults Bill, which will do much to strengthen the system of vetting people to ensure their suitability to work with children. That will no doubt follow on from the Protection of Children Act 2000 passed at Westminster and will fit into arrangements in the UK and Europe.
With the open movement of people in the EU, vetting is a local, national and international problem. One of the greatest challenges in our Act is to consider the issue on an all-Ireland basis, because the legislation will only work as part of an overall system to protect children in both parts of this island. However, the issue will be complex and has the potential to slow down developments here, while the pace of change with the Protection of Children Act in England is rapid.
For several years, others viewed the system of vetting in Northern Ireland as a good model with the then prevailing practice. The Martin Huston report in 1993 brought about several changes to the vetting system and considerable investment by the then Department of Health and Social Services in training and new guidance to ensure that vetting checks were carried out by a wide range of organisations, including those in the voluntary sector.
Many organisations and the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety have invested heavily in systems designed to weed out those people who are unsuitable to work with children. However, the system requires more than an infrastructure to work; there is a real danger of getting lost in process and being unable to see the wood for the trees.
The most recent figures from the RUC for 1999-00 state that 788 sexual offences involving children were reported in Northern Ireland. In the previous year, the figure was 1,037. For a variety of reasons many of the perpetrators will not be successfully prosecuted. That alone merits a separate debate in the House. Very few convictions will be noted on the criminal records system or names added to the sex offenders register. That underlines the importance of the Pre-Employment Consultancy Service (PECS), which operates outside the criminal justice system and which should detect those people who harm children but are not prosecuted.
I was astounded to note, from a written answer from the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, that only 16 individuals are currently listed on the PECS register, notwithstanding the apparently broad criteria for reporting to the Department and for inclusion on the PECS register. I am concerned about that.
We can have the best infrastructure for vetting those who work with children, but the system will fail if individuals are not reported and added to the PECS register.
That raises several issues. First, why are there so few individuals on the PECS register? What is the Department doing to remedy that in the lengthy period before the new legislation is passed?
Secondly, there is the issue of public confidence in a process that may not be as robust as it appears to the general public and members of those organisations who use PECS. There should not be an overreliance on PECS; it must be part of a wider, vigorous recruitment procedure.
Thirdly, with regard to the established Protection of Children Act list in England and Wales and the proposal for a criminal records bureau throughout the UK, we must have confidence in what is checked by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety when vetting individuals. Is the list held by the Department of Education routinely checked? What is the position concerning people coming over from Scotland? Is the Protection of Children Act list checked against the Department of Education’s list?
Since it will take time to pass new legislation and get the processes absolutely right, it is imperative that interim measures be put in place to address many of those issues. The vetting process should be examined, weaknesses and strengths should be identified and guidance should be reviewed to account for changing practice. The wider public and users of the PECS system must be informed about what it can and cannot do.
Those people who pose a risk to children know no borders and will exploit any loopholes and anomalies in the systems in the North and South of this island. That is one of the weakest aspects in the operation of the current system. It is more than a theoretical risk that unscrupulous individuals who appear on either list would seek to move across the border to the Republic of Ireland, where no such checks are carried out. We urgently need effective cross- border arrangements put into the proposed protection of children and vulnerable adults legislation, and we should implement policies and protocols at this stage. Failure to do so exposes the Achilles heel of our vetting system.
Two issues must be addressed as soon as possible. In a reply to a question for oral answer, the Minister stated that it is not possible for organisations in the Irish Republic to access the PECS system of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That is unacceptable, and given the movement among the population North and South, it seems perverse that we are not taking urgent steps to remedy the situation. It is possible for checks to be carried out through the Garda Síochána and the RUC on Northern-domiciled staff who work in the South. We should be working towards a similar system in relation to the PECS and List 99 information.
Several organisations in Northern Ireland employ staff from the Republic of Ireland. The Department of Health and Social Service’s 1996 guidance on vetting in ‘Making the Right Choice’ highlights that there are no equivalent registers, such as PECS and List 99, in the Irish Republic. In practice, however, the Department’s forms are used to obtain a police check, and it is often assumed by the organisation that staff from the Irish Republic are vetted to the same level as their Northern counterparts. The Departments must make clear to organisations what is and is not involved in a PECS check of staff from outside this jurisdiction.
My party welcomes the North/South child protection working group that has been established through the North/South Ministerial Council. Collaboration on the protection of children on both sides of the border is long overdue. However, we must recognise that respective Departments and their civil servants will not have all the answers or solutions, and neither may they be au fait with issues on the ground.
Many voluntary and non-governmental organisations have expertise in that field, and it is essential that they are involved as full partners in the debate. New equality legislation in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is designed to ensure a new partnership between Government and the voluntary sector. We must ensure that that partnership is demonstrated in dealing with such an important issue. Both Ministers should detail how they intend to augment the expertise of their civil servants.
Our children are entitled to the highest level of protection that society can offer. It is essential not only that we ensure that young people are properly protected, but that we defend their human rights and promote their right to equality. The Administration should demonstrate that the care and protection of young people in Northern Ireland is its highest priority. We must send those who prey on our children a clear signal that their evil ways will not be tolerated.
Offenders can change their name by deed poll. That matter is not in the remit of any of the Ministers here; it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and I have brought it up with him several times. What legal requirement is there for offenders to report such a change to the relevant authorities? That loophole has not been given adequate consideration and negates the effect of the PECS checks. The Secretary of State should address that issue without delay, enabling us to pull our child protection legislation together and provide effective measures to deal with the problem. I urge the Ministers who are responsible for PECS and List 99 to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about that issue.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Our main difficulty is that suitability checks are not applied in a standard fashion throughout the Province. Also, there is no system that applies to workers coming in from Wales, England or Scotland, mainly because of the speed with which devolution has taken place. There are no quick verifiable checks in place. The Assembly should take that on board, and the Minister should try to establish a comprehensive system of suitability checking as quickly as possible.
There could be some operational difficulties for schools. Education and library boards have established a system of suitability checks for schools to use. However, those of us who are involved in community work will know that nowadays, many after-school activities take place in community centres, including after-school playgroups and work with children with learning difficulties. Many such activities are operated by community groups. That is where the expertise is lacking, and Ms Lewsley should have concentrated on that area.
People working in such circumstances should receive clear guidance. People with a perverse nature may be able to insinuate themselves into that new situation. Whereas they would previously have been detected by the Government institutions, they may now be able to take advantage of that opportunity. We must ensure that support for children goes further than is envisaged in the motion. There are agencies, not directly under the Minister’s control but under the control of community or voluntary agencies, that deal with children almost from birth until they leave school and beyond. Such agencies must be given help with carrying out suitability checks.
I do not buy into Ms Lewsley’s suggestion that all-Ireland institutions be established. A good deal of child abuse has taken place in all-Ireland-based institutions. We are all aware that personnel who have created difficulties in schools and institutions in the North of Ireland have been moved to the South of Ireland to camouflage their perversion. It is therefore essential that our Minister has direct responsibility for establishing suitability checks on individuals, whether they arrive from England, Scotland, Wales, elsewhere in Europe, or America. There must also be a code of conduct to examine not only those who have been prosecuted for these offences, but individuals about whom there are personnel files that hold details suggesting that a degree of perversion has been detected. Often, people are moved on quietly to ensure discretion or to protect the good name of an institution. Sometimes people are protected quietly by a change in the institution in which they work. We are all too aware of examples of such incidents.
In general, I support the resolution, but I ask that the relevant Minister take direct responsibility, because he can establish quickly in his Department the necessary suitability checks and procedures. The onus is on us to establish codes of good practice to safeguard children. Those of us who do not have any expertise in that field should put codes of good practice in place in our community groups. Those should extend as equally to small rural playgroups as to organisations in conurbations where operations may already exist. We all share that responsibility. It is easy to focus on the main institutions such as schools, but we do not always consider smaller organisations such as voluntary and community groups, which provide day-to-day activities for the youth of our community.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat. I thank Ms Lewsley for proposing the motion. It should be welcomed, because this is the last plenary session before the summer recess, and children’s rights are at the top of the agenda again. Other Members have highlighted issues concerning the PECS system and List 99. However, as Ms Lewsley mentioned, we must take on board the fact that many Departments and Ministers have some form of responsibility for children. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the Minister of Education, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister and the Northern Ireland Office all have some responsibility for children, so it is not surprising that the legislation relating to the issue can be confusing. Until we have a Minister who has overarching responsibility for children, none of those Departments can take the lead to ensure that children’s rights are paramount. The ‘Our Duty to Care’ document states that
"child protection is all our business, establishing good practice, taking the necessary steps to improve the vetting procedure minimises the potential for abuse and maximises the level of safety for our children."
The present vetting system, whether carried out by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety or the Department of Education, has its problems.
We must welcome the proposed protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill that is due in the next few months, as it will put the legislation on a statutory footing. We must protect children throughout the island. Every week, press and television reports tell us of someone being convicted in the South who moves North and vice versa. That problem must be tackled.
Allowing groups and agencies to check an all-Ireland register would help prevent unsuitable people from working with children. Many of those groups have voluntary workers, yet they have no way of accessing these lists.
We must review the vetting system, as most of those who offend against children are not convicted for various reasons. That is perhaps an issue for another day.
We are aware that the Departments and the social services keep a list of people whom they deem to be unsuitable. However, many groups find it hard to access that list, and we must examine ways of making it easier for them to do so. Groups must follow a procedure to gain access to the list. First, they must contact the childcare unit. Then they must give details of the constitution and structure of the group and names and addresses of their members and officer board. They must provide a job description, show how the applicant will have access to children and state why access is unavoidable. All of that must take place before they are allowed to access the list.
Sharing information is important in assessing whether children are at risk and in ensuring their safety. We must make those procedures easier so that organisations can access that information. Why do we create problems for groups and organisations that want to access information to ensure that the children in their organisations are safe?
I support the motion, and I agree with the mover that we must get this right. I welcome the proposed protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill. We must examine the North/South and all-Ireland child protection initiatives. Has that child protection work been stopped by the refusal of the First Minister, or the caretaker First Minister, to nominate Ministers? That must also be examined.
I pay tribute to the community and voluntary organisations that work in this sector. I also pay tribute to local councils, especially Lisburn Borough Council, for its work with the NSPCC in drawing up childcare policies. Groups, organisations and local councils have taken the lead and implemented the ‘Our Duty to Care’ booklet despite problems from the Departments. They have left the Departments behind in that matter. It is up to us to ensure that that legislation is put in place so that we can complement the good work of the community and voluntary sectors and local councils.
We must ensure that Ministers implement the relevant legislation and get rid of the red tape. We must make it easier for interested groups to access the list of those who have been deemed unsuitable to work with children so that we can ensure that children’s rights and safety are paramount. I support the motion, and I thank Ms Lewsley for moving it today. Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I welcome today’s debate for several reasons. I fervently believe that children are important; that is the bottom line. We must do everything in our power to protect them and give them the quality of life that they are entitled to.
I support wholeheartedly the motion in the name of Ms Lewsley, whom I am pleased and proud to work with on the all-party children’s committee. We will continue to work with the organisations mentioned by Sue Ramsey, to ensure that the vetting system will be amended. Voting for the motion will help that work. I congratulate the Members, including Patricia Lewsley, for their comprehensive speeches.
Statistics on abuse of children in Northern Ireland are horrifying, and I make no apology for stating them. The NSPCC and the Voluntary Development Agency provided the figures. In 1995, seventy children suffered the horrors of rape. In 1996, the figure was higher. The estimates for last year are that three children were raped and 12 were assaulted every week. Last year alone, over 900 sexual offences were recorded, and the rape figures were over 150 — the tip of an iceberg, Mr Speaker. We must do more to protect our children.
Ms Lewsley has already talked about the problems with the Protection of Children Act, List 1999 and the PECS register, and these must be addressed immediately and directly.
The realisation that something must be done has grown steadily over the years. A turning point for many people, certainly for those in my own constituency, was the tragic case of the abuse perpetrated by a senior teacher at Bangor Grammar School. Strangers rarely threaten our children — it is usually people they know, respect and trust. We must do everything possible to ensure that the people involved with our children are worthy of that trust. One of the ways in which we can do this is to educate the general public with correct information and provide access to advice and support.
Most children are abused by adults whom they know and trust. The reported cases of child abuse are just the tip of the iceberg of the cruelty, exploitation and neglect to which children in our society are subjected. Disabled children are more vulnerable to abuse. They are more dependant on intimate care and are sometimes less able to tell anyone or run away from abusive situations. Children fear the consequences of telling; if things are bad, perhaps they will get worse. Unfortunately, many children have become very good at hiding their unhappiness and distress. Another statistic, which I find horrifying, is that the majority of children whose names were placed on the child protection register in Northern Ireland in 1995 were between one and nine years of age.
Westminster passed the Protection of Children Act 1999, which allows for the establishment of a criminal records bureau and a list maintained by the Secretary of State to prevent abusers moving from one location to another to continue the horrific attacks on our children and society. I can only hope, as I am sure do all Members, that the bureau is created and action plans are implemented as quickly as possible.
The NSPCC has supported the use of independent visitors for some time. The role of an independent visitor is to befriend, advise and have an independent, positive relationship with the child or young person. The NSPCC carried out research on young people in care who had access to an independent visitor. Key findings of ‘Official Friends and Friendly Officials’ were that independent visitors received high approval ratings from young people and played an important role in mediating or advising young people when problems arose. Young people commented on the value of the role. I would go along with the NSPCC in advocating reform of article 31 of the Children Order 1995 to read
"When an authority is looking after any child for more than 3 months and where not placed with its parents, the authority should take steps, in consultation with the child or young person, to appoint an Independent Visitor for him."
As became evident during the recent foot-and-mouth disease outbreak, Northern Ireland shares a border with another state, and it is all too easy for a perpetrator to move from the South to the North or vice versa. Such movement on either side usually masks an unsavoury past. I therefore wholeheartedly support the idea of an all-Ireland children’s strategy. Mr Gibson, when he was outlining his argument against such a strategy, only illustrated that if we work together, we get things done.
The Probation Board for Northern Ireland works closely with the South, and that leads to effective action. Our aim is to establish an effective working partnership between the two countries and between Departments on this project, which concerns us all. A great benefit of the Assembly is that we can raise the issues that affect the people of Northern Ireland and work towards solutions.
What are the Ministers doing to increase the safety of our children, and how are they implementing the Protection of Children Act 1999? What measures are they taking in conjunction with their Southern counterparts to ensure the safety of all children on the island? The public must be given more direct access and practical information so that children are confident that there is broad support.
The most important reason for supporting the motion is to protect children, who are our most valuable resource. Let us make their childhood safe. We welcome the forthcoming protection of children and vulnerable adults Bill. The motion also gives us a chance to illustrate how the Assembly can make a difference to the lives of children and everyone in Northern Ireland. If we protect our children now, we will have a better society in the future.
We can make a difference for the better. There should be no loopholes. Our children should be protected effectively and practically, and I am confident that we can accomplish that. The consensus that was evident today will continue: therefore it is with pleasure that I support the motion.

Mrs Joan Carson: I support Patricia Lewsley’s motion. There is dissatisfaction with the current system for vetting those who work with children. The protection of our children in any circumstance is most important. Anyone who comes into contact with children through employment or on a voluntary basis must be suitably vetted. We must encourage and promote the highest standards of child safety in all strands of our society, because no strand is immune from child abuse. We must learn from the lessons of the past and ensure that the future is safer for our children.
Who could forget the Waterhouse report, which catalogued a horrifying account of child abuse and the failure of a system designed to safeguard vulnerable children. Last year’s report by Warwickshire County Council listed several initiatives, the adoption of which could be considered as an interim measure. These included introducing a whistle-blowing policy for staff to report matters of concern, and making it an offence to fail to report bad practice or misconduct. It also called for more inspection reports and safeguard checks to be carried out on all residential placements.
Any vetting procedure must be implemented in co-operation with all the recognised children’s organisations and the RUC to give maximum protection to our children, who are the most vulnerable sector of our society. I ask the Ministers and the Departments concerned to take immediate suitable interim steps to improve the situation until there is a more extensive debate on the matter in the autumn.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I support the motion, and I congratulate Ms Lewsley for proposing it at this critical time. Children are the most vulnerable people in our society and must be protected. At present there are insufficient places available to children who are in need of care.
Last week a headline in The ‘Derry Journal’ said "Review slams trust — Kids forced into unsafe homes". According to that newspaper report, children are being forced into residential homes that have insufficient resources. They are also placed in foster homes. However, there are also inadequate places available. We know what happened in Belfast when a 14-year-old slipped and fell because he was probably placed somewhere that initially seemed safe but was not.
In Foyle Trust, there have been inadequate placements of children in residential care. At times, children have been placed with parents or relatives who do not have the resources to look after them. A report from the Western Health and Social Services Board states that even when children are placed in care, staff at times were inadequately trained, inadequately supervised and were experiencing unacceptable workload pressures. It stated that foster carers in the Western Health and Social Services Board area had not been offered training in the past five years and revealed that out-of-hours provision could no longer be guaranteed.
Shortly before I became a Member of the Assembly, I came as part of a deputation to the Minister of Heath, Social Services and Public Safety, asking for more resources to be put into childcare. As yet, that has not really happened. The report is quite damning in that it says that the care is just not there, and any care that is available sometimes falls far short of what is required.
The staff are aware of the shortcomings, which they blame on lack of resources. For example, in north and west Belfast, funding, which Members would agree is inadequate, is 25% to 50% higher than in the Foyle Trust area. The report also reveals a serious lack of resources in every part of the family and childcare programmes.
As the Assembly is about to go into recess and as we are unsure about what is going to happen to it, it is important that the motion is passed today. Without it, children in our society will be unprotected. The Assembly will probably appoint a children’s commissioner. It is necessary because children are our natural resource, and we have a responsibility to protect them. Without a children’s commissioner there is no way that we can protect children in the future.

Prof Monica McWilliams: It is important that we consider child protection and vetting systems under the motion today rather than under something as daft as Megan’s Law. The difficulty is that when the media get their hands on a controversial and emotive issue such as this, they tend, with few exceptions, to approach it in the wrong way.
We do not want to drive these people underground. We want to get them registered and put under surveillance. This is one way of achieving that goal, though there are difficulties.
At present, these are only guidance protocols, and there will be several difficulties associated with them until they are put on a statutory footing. One difficulty is that employers are frightened, especially because the guidance is not statutory. There are implications for employers, and we must reassure them that it is better that we go down this road. The sooner the guidance is on a legislative footing, the better. I am pleased that the legislation will be passed to the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee, where we can go through it line by line.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
The media should not hijack the issue. Most of the predatory abuse from individuals towards children and vulnerable adults — and it is predatory — is from people known to them. They are very clever people. Every day, during the research I carried out at the start of the 1990s on abuse and domestic violence, I thought that I had heard the worst story and the most incredible ingenuity used by these individuals in targeting children and vulnerable adults.
We are always increasing our knowledge about how individuals abuse children, hence the point about the North/South connections. Those people, who are beginning to be detected or come under surveillance, and those who risk being suspended and who may end up on the PECs register, know to move elsewhere.
Where is that somewhere else on a small island such as this? It will probably be the Republic of Ireland. Unless they have been convicted in Northern Ireland, there is no way that they can be detected. They can move quite freely into organisations — which we now know they target — in order to reach vulnerable adults and children.
I have had a great deal of experience of accompanying individuals through the court system, but I now question whether I would do so again. However, I recommend that we pursue the criminal justice system, although having observed the process and having seen so many cases lost, I know it is very difficult to get a conviction for child abuse. That is why this matter is so important. These are not people with convictions. If they were, they would be on the police register. These are individuals against whom there have been allegations or who have served suspension in their previous employment. That there are only 18 people on the register tells its own story. There is a great deal of alarm about how to use it.
Let me give an example. Yesterday, representatives of an organisation called Lifestart came to see me, although on a different matter. The organisation works with children. It has family visitors who go into homes to advise parents on child development — it is a fantastic scheme. It has found that commencing literacy and numeracy training with children — especially those in disadvantaged and deprived communities — before they start school can bring them a long way in their development. Lifestart wrote to the unit in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to request that their family visitors be vetted and was told that it did not have to do that.
The questions that have been asked in the document ‘Making the Right Choice: A Guide to Using the Pre- employment Consultancy Service’ are:
"Does the post involve one-to-one access?"
The answer in the case of these family visitors is "Yes".
"Is the post unsupervised or unaccompanied?"
"Yes."
"Is the situation isolated?"
If you were in a family home by yourself the answer would be "Yes".
"Is there recurring contact?"
If the family visitors were building up contact over time for continuity with those families and children, the answer would be "Yes". Despite all of that, Lifestart was told that the vetting service does not apply to it.
What does the organisation do instead? It tells its family visitors that because it has been unable to carry out any vetting, every time a parent leaves the room, they must leave too so that they are not left with a child by themselves in case anything should happen. That is not the way to proceed. It would be much better if organisations such as Lifestart were able to go through the system of vetting all their family visitors, who could then get on with their work in a sensible fashion.
It could be a matter of resources. I was alarmed when I read in ‘Making the Right Choice’ that if organisations are applying simply to clear themselves, especially where there is an issue concerning disabled children, they should think again, unless they are able to answer all the questions. Then there is this incredible sentence in block type that says that if you have not answered these questions or taken yourself through these questions,
"requests for checks will be returned unanswered ".
That is a prohibitive statement to make in a guidance document. It would be useful if some reasons were given. That is where guidance falls down. It is only guidance; not legislation. However, the numbers speak for themselves, and there are concerns about the number of organisations that cannot complete the vetting process. They are working away while being able to answer those questions. People are going into homes, with one-to-one access that is unsupervised and unaccompanied, where the situation is isolated and where the contact is recurring.
Regardless of being able to answer "yes" to all of the questions, organisations are not able to have their workers vetted. It is a major issue, as is the issue of people moving from place to place once they have been detected.
We must begin an information and awareness exercise. The media have just not got the message. All the causes that are hyped up are about children who have been abused by strangers, which is an extreme but rare form of abuse. Most abuse of children and vulnerable adults comes from people whom they know, and that is why such people go into these organisations. They are clever enough to do that. We need an incredible education process among parents, and this guidance is the first rung on the ladder towards that.
It is to be hoped that we will take the opportunity to start that educational exercise when the legislation comes to the Floor. Until parents, neighbours and the extended family know how to protect children and with whom children are most vulnerable, we will not get it right. All we will be doing is picking up newspapers — and I could name them and shame them because of the hyped-up nonsense they print — and reading about some case that catches our attention for two weeks, while the majority of abuse goes undetected.
In the end, we must accept that we will only ever catch a minority of abusers — I know that from my experience in the courts with those who have come through the system. The majority of abusers will go undetected. However, we can start to prevent further abuse by the minority of abusers whom we have detected. We can move in that direction when the guidance is put on a statutory basis. I commend Patricia Lewsley for tabling the motion.

Mr Roy Beggs: I register an interest in the debate. I am a voluntary youth worker, a Boys Brigade officer and a parent of three young children. There is a clear need to improve the current vetting system. As others have said, there are a small number of offenders on the register, and there have been several high-profile cases where abusers have moved across boundaries.
How effective are we in liaising with other UK regions, never mind other European countries? How can we deal with offenders who use new aliases? Is our current system robust enough to detect such people? In the education and sporting worlds, non-EU citizens can become involved in training children. This is not an all-Ireland issue; it is an all-children issue. It affects all adults who train children and care for them. It should not be used in a political fashion.
I recall the child protection training that I received as a Boys Brigade officer. It was the first time that responsibility for caring for children was explained to me. Realisation of the legal responsibility can be quite daunting and off-putting to young officers. However, many people choose to give voluntarily and freely of their time to help children.
It is important to ensure that there is an effective system, and that in informing volunteers and professionals about the system you explain that it protects adults as well as children. It is important that people continue to give freely of their time to assist children, because many vulnerable children come from families that are not as well structured as they should be. Such children coming into contact with the voluntary sector can meet adults who are able to show care and a degree of love and support for them. It is important that those societal attitudes continue.
Effective vetting is needed, but the vetting system must also deal with the issues sensitively. A balance must be achieved. The need for the system should be carefully explained to voluntary workers but without discouraging them. The explanation must be given in a way that youth workers understand that vetting is important for their own protection and the protection of children.
The post of children’s commissioner should be progressed as soon as possible. Cross-cutting is involved here, and someone has to take the lead. The establishment of a children’s commissioner will help Ministers and Departments to concentrate on the issue and ensure that effective measures are put in place as soon as possible.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. I am sorry that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety cannot be here because of her work commitments.

Sir John Gorman: The Minister has sent me a letter, which I will read aloud when you have finished.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I hope that she will reply to us in writing.
Members have stated that child protection is not the responsibility of any one Department; it is the responsibility of all Departments. I thank the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure for his attendance at the start of the debate, given his responsibilities for sporting events and after-school activities.
In reply to Oliver Gibson, I did not suggest that an all-Ireland institution should be set up. My priority was to discuss the PECS register and List 99. The PECS register contains the names of people who have been reported to the Department by their employers because of their behaviour at work, where they have put children or adults with learning disabilities at risk, and the employers have indicated that they would be unsuitable for such work in the future.
People may be reported for all forms of abuse, including sexual abuse, violence and drug-related matters. The problem is that PECS cannot provide the information. The Department of Health maintains a similar register for England and Wales. However, at present it is not possible to check that list. I hope that the Minister will take up the issue and that the situation will be resolved in the near future.
There is also List 99, which is a UK-wide list drawn up by the Department for Education and Employment on people who are legally debarred from working in schools. Again, it is not possible to check that list. I hope that this is a temporary situation that will be resolved soon.
The main issue is that there are no equivalent registers in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland, and the Minister should address seriously that loophole. Members have repeatedly mentioned that better communication and co-ordination between organisations is needed. This is not a regional or a national issue; it is an international issue. As Roy Beggs said, it is a children’s issue.
Unless there is co-ordination and communication across all countries, terrible paedophiles will continue to prey on vulnerable children.
Parents should be given more information on how to teach their children to react in difficult situations. The Education Committee has discussed the instructions being produced by the Department. The NSPCC has produced information, but it is not being delivered in schools, because it is about teaching children what is right and wrong. The aim is not to make children aware of what is acceptable for adults to do or not do to them; they need to be taught that it is wrong for anyone, whether they know them or not, to do certain things.
I thank everyone involved in the voluntary community sector and non-governmental organisations who work tirelessly in this field — an area that is often underfunded and under tremendous pressure. If it were not for their dedication and commitment to sexual abuse victims, some of the loopholes and gaps that exist would be much wider.
I proposed the motion so that Members would be made more aware of the issue. This is only the beginning; it is hoped that when the legislation comes before the House, many more issues will be addressed.
Eileen Bell is correct in stating that children are our most precious resource; they are our future. If we cannot protect them when they are at their most vulnerable, what kind of future can we hope they will have?

Sir John Gorman: The Minister is not present. She has written to me to say that she is in the United States attending to urgent health matters, and she makes her apologies. However, she will study Hansard to read what has been expressed today, and I trust that she will respond in writing to those Members who raised questions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Ministers responsible for the protection of children, in view of the anomalies in the current vetting system, to take the necessary interim steps to improve the position on vetting those suitable to work with children.

Children’s Hospice

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the ongoing dispute surrounding the future of the children’s hospice and calls for an early resolution of the issues.
The children’s hospice ought to be a focus of public concern because of the tragedy concerning the issues involved and the unncessary nature of the dispute that has blown up over the past months. It would be remiss of the Assembly if, before it rises for the summer recess, it did not comment on the matter, which has been reported on in the newspapers, on radio and television, and has been the subject of investigation.
Members have a responsibility to comment on the matter and to tell those responsible for the children’s hospice that it is important that they resolve the issues and focus on the central mission of the children’s hospice, which is to deliver a caring service for children who are terminally ill.
Members must be concerned about the wrangling that has taken place, and which has damaged the credibility of the children’s hospice. That wrangling has sapped the morale of many who for years have been quietly engaged in supporting the children’s hospice, raising funds and delivering a mission statement that will ultimately deliver a service for children with needs.
I hope that the debate will help those people with responsibility to focus their minds on expediting a solution to the crisis that has developed over some time.
There are four key issues. First, there has been a lack of management accountability concerning the children’s hospice. That must concern us, because this is a large charity, which impacts on many families. There must be accountability.
Secondly, management issues have taken the place of the mission of the children’s hospice.
Thirdly, there has been a lack of transparency in the financial dealings of the children’s hospice, especially regarding the appointment and employment of the new chief executive. There were some questions asked about that matter at a members’ meeting in April, but no answers have been given yet. There must be financial transparency in order that people can have confidence in a charitable organisation that so many people wish to support. Many people are asking "Why this person?" "What are the terms and conditions?" "Does his appointment fly in the face of what we have come to know as equality legislation in Northern Ireland?"
Fourthly, there has been a total lack of integrity in the council’s dealings with its former director, Mr Tom Hill. That goes to the nub of what we are debating. Lack of integrity, regardless of the reason, challenges the credibility of the organisation and its work.
The saga has more twists and turns than a corkscrew. This morning, the ‘News Letter’ put it quite vividly when it said that the story has more twists than a television soap opera. Soap opera scriptwriters would have some job delivering a saga with so many turns. However, this is not a farce: it is a serious matter, and it has become a tragedy for Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we debate the issue and encourage those involved to resolve the problems.
At the extraordinary general meeting of hospice members in April, several issues were identified. First, there was the issue of financial transparency, which I briefly touched on in my opening comments. The relationship of donators to the children’s hospice was raised, as was the chief executive’s financial remuneration.
Many people will have raised their eyebrows when they read in this morning’s ‘News Letter’ that according to what was said at the April meeting, the new chief executive, when appointed as the director of a charity, was earning approximately £6,000 per month. Many people will be astounded at that figure, considering that the appointment does not appear to meet any of the criteria that we have come to expect under equality legislation for the appointment of individuals to such important posts.
I do not want to make this into a personal issue concerning the chief executive, but the matter deserves to be addressed and resolved. The people who have given money to the organisation need to know who is being paid, how much is being paid and why certain amounts are being paid. That is crucial. It would be foolhardy of the Assembly not to know such facts, just as it would be foolhardy for the membership of the children’s hospice not to know what is really going on.
Also identified in April was the serious matter that the membership had no confidence in the board and called for it to step down. The vote of no confidence has not been recognised; it has been virtually ignored. When you have a board that treats its membership with contempt, you will have more rancour in the organisation.
Who has permitted the running sore of the employment of the charity director, Mr Tom Hill, to become such a contentious issue? In the ‘News Letter’ this morning, a spokesperson for the children’s hospice said that
"anything which reduces the ability of the organisation to deliver its core services is not in the best interests of those who need them most."
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. The issue of the employment of Mr Tom Hill and the way he has been treated is reducing the credibility and the ability of the organisation. It is essential that those in charge of the hospice face that issue and stop running away. They need to identify the crisis and endeavour to resolve it expeditiously.
There is also the issue of management incompetence. The day after Mr Hill was sacked, I received a telephone call from a distraught constituent who told me that her office had received a fax from the solicitors acting for the chief executive and the council of the children’s hospice. The fax detailed a plan to sack an individual, and she wanted to get that document to me. The six- page legal document drawn up by solicitors acting for the council was delivered to me. It outlined a timetable and an efficient method for setting this person up for dismissal. When that was revealed, there was absolutely no apology for that plan of campaign. There has been a failure to recognise that management overstepped the mark.
The document shows that Mr Hill was to be treated in an unfair fashion. He was to be isolated from other directors — how can a director do his job if he is isolated from his colleagues? A firewall was to be established on all personnel matters, in order to restrict the work of this director. How could you work under those circumstances? The document also said that the council should contemplate denying Mr Hill the right to attend council meetings, to which he had to report, and recommended making him unrecognisable as a director of the agency.
A man of integrity lost his job through workings that have a patina of legality, outlining how he should be isolated while ignoring his well-deserved public appreciation and support. When there is that level of incompetence — or, should I say, "scheming", which is worse — people should realise that perhaps the decision taken in April by the membership to call on the board to stand down, to create a clean slate, to allow a fresh start and to focus on the mission of the children’s hospice delivering a service for dying children who have real needs was the right one. The membership was right to call for the board to stand down and to allow us to focus on the real issue — the management of terminally ill children.
However, instead of dealing with the type of children’s hospice that Northern Ireland needs or welcoming the establishment of a first-class service, the pressure on the public and on public representatives is to discuss, read and hear about the management style of a board and a council. There is a major deficiency in that management style, and that must be addressed.
During the course of the election, the Member for South Antrim, Mr Jim Wilson, rightly called for a public inquiry into the matter. I support that call. In the debate, on the motion put down by Ms Lewsley, the issue of a children’s commissioner was raised. If such a commissioner is ever appointed, he or she should have a retrospective look at the matter, because it affects children who are in great need and who have very little time to address that need.
The motion will, I hope, speed up the investigation, because to date every supposed internal check and balance on the accountability of the board — or lack thereof — has failed. An independent inquiry will address that.
The management style should never have been an issue for the public. The delivery of a first-class service — the care of terminally ill youngsters — should be the key issue. That is what saddens most people who have had any dealing with this. They realise that the real issue has been forgotten in the subterfuge and jealous wrangling that have become the public debate on the children’s hospice.
The credibility of the children’s hospice is on the block today, and those in charge of it have several options. I hope that they will take the first one; that they will adhere to the decision made in April and stand down. Waiting until September or October will only result in a bigger problem. Action is required immediately.
In closing, I pay tribute to Tom Hill for his tireless and thankless efforts to do something tangible for those in greatest need. The tragedy today is the way that his effort has been rewarded — or not. He did not seek recognition, but for him to be jettisoned because of professional or personal jealousy that ultimately challenges the credibility of the children’s hospice, is the real tragedy.
So much has been achieved: over £5 million has been raised, a site has been delivered at a peppercorn purchase price by Newtonabbey Borough Council and the largest grant to any UK hospice has been received. The prospect of a state-of-the-art hospice is in front of us. So much more is at stake — the caring service for children in dire need. Yet all those things, which we should really be debating and encouraging, have been lost because of the management failure of the children’s hospice. I hope that, in some small way, the Assembly is able to influence those people and encourage them to resolve the problem now and to focus on the real mission of the children’s hospice.

Mr Jim Wilson: I support the motion. The Northern Ireland Hospice is a major contributor to Northern Ireland’s healthcare portfolio. It was founded 18 years ago with little money, two staff and an enormous vision. Today it is a multi-million pound organisation providing in-patient care at Somerton House, specialist nurses working with adults throughout most of Northern Ireland, an at-home service and a Province-wide children’s service.
We are, of course, looking forward to the opening of the Northern Ireland children’s hospice in September, but it is regrettable that the final stages of that fantastic initiative have been tainted by the management council’s treatment of a member of staff directly linked with the project. I remember when Tom Hill came to my parish church. I remember his vision, his passion and, especially, his cry for help.
In recent months, we have all read and listened to media reports of the sorry affair. Shrouded in mystery enforced by the council, the public has been left in a total state of amazement as to what really happened to result in such a mess. There is no doubt that Tom Hill has suffered a great deal from the confused and bizarre handling of his case.
He has made an enormous contribution to the realisation of the vision to create Northern Ireland’s first children’s hospice. Now, for reasons known only to, perhaps, very few, he is no longer part of that vision. Is it not time for the management council to come clean? Is it not time for the council to consider its position? In any other walk of life, a confidence slump such as has happened here would bring about resignation or sacking.
The hospice is suffering financially as a result of the ongoing dispute. Some supporters are reluctant to contribute until the issues are resolved. That, coupled with the impact of foot-and-mouth disease on a major fund-raiser for the hospice, has had a devastating effect.
We must remember that, while all this is going on, patients are still being cared for. Medical and nursing staff are still providing the best possible care. Families continue to receive support at the most critical time in their lives. Confidence must be restored to enable the staff to get on with their work, for volunteers once again to feel proud to be associated with one of Northern Ireland’s great success stories and for fund-raisers and the public to rediscover their enthusiasm and generosity.
This is a very difficult time. It is not a time to identify winners or losers. It must not be a time when patients are at risk of being the losers. No matter what, the patients and their families should always be at the top of the agenda, as should the doctors, the nurses and the caring staff.
The management dispute with Tom Hill is regrettable, but it is to be hoped that the laws of the land will deal with that in a correct and appropriate way. The Member for North Antrim, Mr Paisley Jnr, brought to our attention some disquieting information about what could be described as the "questionable planning" of Tom Hill’s departure. I am sure that we will return to that issue.
This whole issue has identified a much bigger problem, which is that the Northern Ireland Hospice has outgrown the system of governance put in place 18 years ago. The day-to-day running of the hospice is under review at the moment, with a report due in October, but the bigger picture needs the same treatment.
Mr Speaker, I heard your explanation of the Minister’s absence, but nevertheless I am disappointed that she is not here. Mr Paisley Jnr referred to my recent request for a public inquiry, which the Minister dismissed. At the time I called it a "cop-out", and I believe that the Minister did cop out. I am unhappy that she is not here today, but in her absence I recommend that she commission a team, representing a cross-section of industry, commerce and health, to examine the current articles of association of the hospice, that she appoint an independent chairperson, and that that team be charged with carrying out a thorough review of the overall management of the hospice, the role of the council and — very importantly — its method of selection.
I also recommend that the Minister of Health Social Services and Public Safety review urgently her Department’s financial contribution to the Northern Ireland Hospice. Currently, that sits at 17% of its running costs, compared to 30% in England and Wales, 50% in Scotland and, in many cases, 100% in the Republic of Ireland. Every £2 provided by the Department of Health secures over ten pounds’ worth of palliative care. Is the Minister not morally obliged to pay the proper price for specialist palliative care services, which have been identified as essential components of the Department’s provision responsibilities?
These positive moves would do much to restore confidence in an organisation that has always enjoyed massive support from the public in Northern Ireland. It must continue to receive that support.
12.00
It was right to have the debate. It is right that Members should contribute to it. It is right to be concerned about very sick children. It is wrong to have had a very public row about sick children. I support the motion.

Sir John Gorman: I trust that the Minister will read Hansard in respect of the child protection motion that preceded this, and I hope that she will also study what has been said in the Chamber today.
I have received some information regarding Mr Hill’s taking his case to an industrial tribunal. While I do not want to curb Members unnecessarily, they must appreciate that if that turns out to be the case, it is conceivable that there could be a sub judice problem. I am just mentioning that. I will not give a ruling on it.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I support the motion. The Northern Ireland children’s hospice will be the first facility for children with terminal diseases and their families and friends. Today, around 50 children are dying from life- limiting illnesses. The children’s hospice that will be built in Newtownabbey is based on the Northern Ireland Hospice’s reputation for caring professionalism and excellent facilities. In my council area of Derry, the Foyle Hospice is recognised as being part of the fabric of the city, and the advent of the children’s hospice in Belfast is seen as extending the service offered both by it and by the Northern Ireland Hospice.
The death of a child is probably the saddest loss that can be experienced. The mission of the children’s hospice will be to care for children with life-limiting diseases from all over Northern Ireland. It will provide help, advice and support for their families. Any child under 19 years of age will be eligible for care, and, as with all hospice services, there will be no charge to the family.
It is significant that, following a competition involving 3,500 schoolchildren, the hospice will be named Horizon House. My understanding is that there will be facilities to provide often lengthy respite care for 10 children, and also to provide for shorter admissions. Parents and families can be accommodated in family rooms if they wish, and parents and their children will be encouraged to treat the hospice as a home from home.
Facilities such as this should not have been allowed to become the focus of a public wrangle. The situation must be resolved quickly so that the families of children with terminal illnesses will at least have the consolation of knowing that their lives and those of their children will be made bearable and that pain will be eased, if not eliminated.
I do not intend to take sides, but I agree that the dispute must be resolved quickly. We cannot allow the issue to drift — it is too serious. I support the motion.

Rev William McCrea: I support the motion and thank my Colleague for bringing it before the House. I deeply regret that it had to be placed on the agenda. No one will want to glory in the fact that such a motion has had to be brought before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The future of the Northern Ireland children’s hospice must not be unnecessarily compromised by the continuing turmoil that has surrounded the events of recent months, and every measure must be taken to secure an effective resolution to the current difficulties.
I am a strong supporter of the valuable work that the Northern Ireland Hospice and its excellent staff have done and continue to do.
However, the facts surrounding this case are disturbing. During my time as Member of Parliament for South Antrim, I was inundated with calls from constituents expressing their deep concern about the saga of the children’s hospice. The issues detracted from the excellent news of the opening of a hospice to care for the terminally ill.
The public and emotive situation of the Northern Ireland children’s hospice is unacceptable, not only to the people of south Antrim, Newtownabbey and the area where the hospice is, but to thousands of people across the Province. Ardent fund-raisers do not come only from the south Antrim area. People across the Province have reached out their hands to the organisation in the past. When it was needed, the public was happy to give its hard-earned money to something that it believed in — something that gave support to many families. The current situation is causing untold distress and uncertainty. A mass petition has been delivered to hospice headquarters at Somerton Road, but confusion still reigns. Surely that is totally unacceptable.
At the annual general meeting in April, 97% of those present supported a vote of no confidence in the hospice management committee. There could not be a clearer indication that all is not well. Many founding families confirm that they would not use the children’s service due to this distrust of the hospice council. A further meeting was requested, but no date for that was notified within the 21 days allowed.
Even now, the council remains undecided on whether Tom Hill will be permitted to appeal against his termination as administrative director. What sort of signal does that send out, not only to the local community, but to the community at large? The negativity and controversy flies in the face of the positive work that has brought the project so close to fruition. The realisation of the children’s hospice project at the O’Neill Road site will bring much relief to over 900 life-limited children in Northern Ireland, providing an invaluable resource for both children and their families.
The Northern Ireland Hospice has always prided itself on the quality of its patient care and goodwill — I have commended it for that. Unfortunately, the events of past months have darkened the horizon. The emotional distress that has been caused to many families must be dispelled lest the Northern Ireland children’s hospice continue to suffer unnecessarily. The sickening saga could be resolved properly and speedily. Those who are involved in the decision-making process would do well to remember why the children’s hospice is named Horizon House. An important lesson can be learned from the child whose privilege it was to name the site.
When asked why she had selected the name "Horizon House", Nicole Crawford replied that when the clouds go away, there is a bright horizon. It is a horizon that should bring new hope to the many families in Northern Ireland who will benefit from using the very special service.
The motion allows us to highlight the causes of the controversy. We should bear in mind that a new horizon, and the hope that accompanies it, can be achieved only through honesty, decency and integrity in dealing with the situation. Those qualities have been lacking in dealings with Tom Hill.
An organisation is always bigger than the individual. Mr Hill recognises that those issues are bigger than he. We must dig deep into the heart of a matter that has brought Tom Hill’s name to the fore.
I, and those from the South Antrim constituency who know him well, believe him to be a gentleman who has worked with great honesty, integrity and decency on behalf of the Northern Ireland Hospice for many years. He is a person of vision; he is caring and understanding to those families going through critical times and whose children are in most need of love and attention.
Why would any organisation plan to discredit Mr Hill and remove him from his position?

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does my hon Friend not find the solicitor’s document outlining a plan of attack upon an individual and an attempt to have him removed — and it can be nothing less than that — outrageous? Anyone who put his hand to devising that can no longer have the support of any right-thinking person.

Rev William McCrea: I thank my hon Friend for his intervention, and I concur with his remarks. I ask myself "What was Tom Hill’s crime?"
When I was a Member of Parliament for South Antrim I received delegations from Mr and Mrs Lynn. I can name them because they appeared on the ‘Spotlight’ television programme. They had a child who was diagnosed with terminal illness and who has since died. They were distraught when they came to see me in Ballyclare, because four different people representing the Northern Ireland Hospice council had, they believed, lied to them — in writing and face to face.
We are told that Tom Hill was sacked primarily because of an alleged conversation in the home of Mr and Mrs Lynn. In spite of repeated assurances that the matter was dropped in July 2000, when the Lynns raised the matter in the ‘Spotlight’ programme, they were told that it had been properly and appropriately dealt with.
The council refused to show the report on the alleged conversation in the Lynns’ home. When the Lynns requested a reply, they received none to their communication or correspondence and no reply to their phone calls. When I spoke to the Lynns, they told me that they had received what they perceived to be a threatening solicitor’s letter on behalf of the hospice nursing manager less than two months after Jonathan’s death. That shows the care and sensitivity of those handling the situation. A grieving, broken-hearted family that needed care and attention as never before seemed to be getting deeper and deeper into a pit. When they tried to get evidence and information, they were not only denied it, but they were refused even the courtesy of a reply.
On their behalf, I contacted the Northern Ireland Hospice. I received a cop-out — hardly surprising, of course, when I heard what Mr and Mrs Lynn said. I wanted a meeting to get to the bottom of this for Mr and Mrs Lynn. That meeting has never taken place — it was never agreed to. I believe that Mr McComiskey was going on holiday. It is only natural for people to go on holiday, but somebody must have been there to deal with matters in his absence. The meeting could have taken place when he came back; but it never has.
This has been a despicable and disgraceful way of handling people whose hearts are broken. They were told that there was no reason to believe that the alleged conversation was part of Mr Hill’s saga, only to read that it was at the heart of Mr Hill’s sacking — lies and deceit. The truth is that the public and those paying money to the hospice no longer have confidence in the Northern Ireland Hospice’s council. Its members have offered to resign; their resignation should be activated immediately.
I want to draw one final consideration to Members’ attention. It will be some months before those places are filled after the resignations. There is a belief that gerrymandering is afoot. It is believed that council members have obtained several hundred membership forms. Postponing the extraordinary general meeting until a later date could give those resigning a better chance of being reinstated by receiving sufficient proxy votes to ensure re-election.
The whole saga stinks. It is breaking the hearts of many hard-working people who have supported the hospice over the years —people who love the hospice and who want to support it in future. Anyone who believes that the facts can be buried forever must think again. It is necessary to have an open, independent inquiry into the saga. The truth must be told.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion, which concerns a vexing matter. Central to it are the children and their families who are suffering because of the ongoing personality disputes in the children’s hospice. That diminishes the positive work and dedication of the professional and voluntary staff of the children’s hospice. It is sad that internal problems have been brought into the public arena in such an unseemly way, because that can only deeply affect the children and families who use the children’s hospice.
You are right, a Leas Cheann Comhairle, to point out that a tribunal is ongoing and to remind us to be careful when discussing the personalities involved in the dispute. The debate ought not to be about personalities, but about the care of the young children, the vulnerable of our society. Anyone who has been to a hospice where adults are dying appreciates the trauma that is involved, and how much greater that trauma is when young children are dying. Our aim should be to attempt to resolve the issues at the centre of the unseemly controversy by any necessary means.
Around £1 million of public funding was allocated to the children’s hospice, and there is no legislation to regulate voluntary organisations in this part of Ireland. Relevant legislation should be urgently introduced, because we are powerless to intervene in a dispute with a voluntary organisation. At the moment, we can only highlight the central issue — the children and their families who are suffering. I ask those involved to disregard the personalities and potentially egotistic behaviour involved, to put aside their public posturing and to work through the circumstances surrounding the unseemly, hurtful public debate about suffering children with an independent adjudicator.
I support the motion, because it gives us an opportunity to speak about the matter in public. We have an obligation and a duty to the children and their families to ensure that this personality issue is not allowed to diminish the focus on the real suffering of people at this time.

Mr David Ford: I will start by emphasising the word "tragedy", which was how Ian Paisley Jnr and Jim Wilson described the situation. We should regard the matter in that light. I am concerned about references to the concept of a public inquiry. Public inquiries might be good at apportioning blame, but I am not sure that we should be seeking to do that. We should seek to be a bit more neutral, and I would prefer the phraseology that is used in the resolution, which refers to seeking "an early resolution" of the difficulties."
The tragedy is that so many people of goodwill started off working together and seeking to promote the needs of life-limited children, but have ended up torn asunder, whether as a result of personality clashes or management differences, in the widest term.
That is leading to a tragedy for the potential clients of the service that the children’s hospice should be providing. We have heard plenty about what has happened in the past. Some Members have perhaps been a little unwise to say as much as they have. We should state the need for the difficulties to be resolved, rather than seek to apportion blame in any way.
There are a vast number of charities in Northern Ireland, as there are across the UK. The time has run out for some of them, and they no longer exist in anything more than name. Some are very small and have difficulties because they principally operate on the basis of the goodwill of volunteers. Some of those we see as charities here are actually branches of national organisations that have firm management structures in place and are run in a truly professional way.
Without wishing to apportion blame, some groups of charities in Northern Ireland have the potential for problems. Those charities, which started out as a small number of people operating on the basis of goodwill with limited funding, have become major local bodies. They were started up with enthusiasm, energy and commitment to a cause — the true meaning of charity. They have grown over the years; they have been given public funds, have attracted outside funding and, in some cases, overseas funding.
Those small groups of volunteers are now trying to run what is, in effect, a major business — employing staff, providing services, et cetera. In many cases the skills that that requires are different from the skills which people brought in at the beginning, such as the enthusiasm to get a body started. Those who find themselves in positions of much greater responsibility than they expected may have run into difficulties inadvertently. They have run into difficulties nevertheless, and problems arise because of it. For that reason, we need a body akin to the Charity Commissioners specifically for Northern Ireland.
Mr Kelly was wrong to say that there is no legal control, but he was right to say that the Assembly has no control over the actions of a voluntary organisation. The control over charities in Northern Ireland is a minimalist one conveyed by Inland Revenue registration on purely financial matters. That is clearly inadequate to deal with the problems highlighted in the hospice, or which may arise in other major regional charities. We do not need a financial audit after problems have arisen. We need a body equivalent to the Charity Commissioners across the water; indeed, in some senses we need to go beyond that. We need a body that would participate in promoting good practice, could help to resolve difficulties and would ensure that this important sector of Northern Ireland society runs to the interests of its clients and is not riven with difficulties like those faced by the hospice.
I want to see that resolution. I support the motion, but I urge caution in apportioning blame or in seeking a public inquiry, as that might merely add to the anguish that is being experienced.

Ms Jane Morrice: It is not necessarily appropriate to take sides in this affair. Authorities are already in place to deal with this. We agree with the motion in the respect that it is calling for an early resolution of the issues. The only side that we should take is that of the children who are terminally ill, their families and those who have worked tirelessly to support them. Along with my Colleague, Mr Ford, my only suggestion is that consideration should be given to appointing a charities commission specific to Northern Ireland to deal with this type of issue.

Mr John Dallat: I rise to support the motion as it is stated in the Order Paper. I do not intend to go beyond that.
The row about the children’s hospice must be resolved. It has gone on too long and has caused untold anxiety to the public, especially to those who matter most — the children and parents who will use the hospice. When the problem is finally resolved, there should be a detailed inquiry into how it got so far out of hand and could not be resolved without a damaging public fracas that did no one any good, not least the sick children who benefit from the hospice.
Charities are voluntary, but that does not reduce the need to abide by established codes of conduct, follow clearly defined procedures and have in place appeals procedures which are fair, fast, efficient and conclusive. On this occasion, the Assembly can do nothing more than take note of the dispute. It is not helpful to take sides, as that may entrench positions and exacerbate the problem. Nevertheless, much can be learned. For example, should a similar row break out in another charity, surely it would be of enormous benefit if mechanisms were in place to intervene to stop that dispute getting out of control. I am pleased that other Members have already suggested something similar.
The voluntary sector, and in particular the charitable bodies, play a critical role in providing a holistic and comprehensive service to those in need. The present incumbents in those charities have rights, but they also have responsibilities to ensure that the image and functions of those charities are not damaged by unnecessary adverse publicity.
As I have said, I am not taking sides in the dispute. That is not the way forward. However, I hope that the matter is resolved sooner rather than later, as that would be in the interests of those who matter most — the children. I support the call for a report — not necessarily a public inquiry — and a debate on its findings. Never again should such a worthy cause be thrust into the public gaze in such a distressing way. Those involved in the hospice movement deserve better; and those who use the service most definitely deserve better.
Now that the matter is before the Assembly, we should appeal to the public not to curtail its support for the hospice movement but to redouble its generosity. We should urge them to become members of the hospice movement and by doing so fulfil one of the most basic needs of mankind — looking after the sick and dying.
I stress that I am not taking sides, nor does the motion require that. I hope that the tribunal referred to earlier will not be compromised by contributions made in the debate.
Finishing on a lighter note — and sometimes we need one — surely if we in the Chamber can agree on the issue, the hospice movement, which is made up of people with a common cause of looking after the needs of very sick children, can resolve its differences. I know that it is not as simple as that. However, I am convinced that no one in this dispute had any evil intentions; nor did they set out to damage the hospice movement. However, that it is what has happened, and it must be resolved by legislation and procedure that will prevent it from happening again.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: This has been a worthwhile debate. I came to the House with a heavy heart in the knowledge that we would have to discuss the tragic happenings surrounding the management of the children’s hospice and how it has taken the limelight from the real issue — the mission of the hospice.
I welcome the serious contributions from those supporting the motion. I do not want to anticipate the House’s unanimous support, although I would welcome that. The management of the children’s hospice is a tangled mess, but this debate ends on a positive note. The House calls on those who have responsibility to take responsibility and resolve the problems. Surely that is what this debate has been about. We should not have had to debate it in a public arena, but we would have been remiss in our duty had we not shown our interest.
I welcome the comments of many Members, and I shall refer to them briefly. Jim Wilson said that the hospice offers a fantastic opportunity, and I agree with him. Everyone can say a hearty "hear, hear" to that. We want a state-of-the-art facility for people in real need.
There is, however, a slump in confidence in how this has been managed, and the debate has focused on that. It was addressed competently by most Members who spoke. The debate issues a challenge to those in charge of the children’s hospice: who runs the hospice, and how should it be managed in future? I hope that that challenge is met, because it is clear that there must be a clearing of the decks. The previous management style has not worked. If it had worked, we would not be debating it today. That is the reality. Let us clear the decks and allow a new, more professional management team to organise the affairs of this very noble charity.
I welcome Mrs Courtney’s comments and those of my Colleague, Mr McCrea. They echoed similar sentiments, which rightly focused on the real victims — the children and their needs and on the urgent, immediate, centred, even selfish, support that these youngsters require. I hope that we can leave this debate behind and focus on the real issues, just as we should encourage the hospice management to resolve its problems so that it too can focus wholeheartedly on those issues.
Mr McCrea said that the heart of the issue was the sacking of the director. When I first read about the matter, the term "gross misconduct" struck my eye. That phrase can send out the wrong message if people do not know what it means. Mud thrown in this society sticks. One finds out, however, that the "misconduct" appears to have been an innocent conversation. This conversation was between a husband and wife who have been involved with the idea of the children’s hospice before there ever was one and who have been involved all their professional lives in caring for terminally ill children. That such "misconduct" is used against the director is a sad reflection, not on the director, but on those who work against him.
The House ought to express its resentment at how that has been used by those in charge of the tangled mess. No one has disputed what I said at the beginning of the debate — that there are four key issues: the general lack of accountability of the hospice; the management issues that have taken the focus off the mission statement; the lack of financial transparency; and the lack of integrity in dealing with an employee. These have not been disputed; I welcome that and believe that the House supports those issues.
I also believe the words of the PR agent for the children’s hospice, who in today’s ‘News Letter’ said that anything that reduces the ability of the organisation to deliver its core services is not in the best interests of those who need them. If the management style reduces the ability to deliver the core services of the children’s hospice, the person who made that statement should present it to her bosses this morning and say to them "It is your style that is reducing the ability of our organisation". The House should support that call. The matter must be resolved expeditiously. It is not good enough to wait until the autumn. It has to be resolved, and resolved now.
Mr Kelly, the Sinn Féin Member for Mid Ulster, was wrong to tell the House that we are powerless to do anything about this. We certainly are not. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not powerless; it could have held an inquiry. If it had held an inquiry when one was first asked for, or even if it had had the imagination to pre-empt those calls by holding an inquiry when the issue raised its head some 18 months ago, we might not be in this situation today. We are not powerless; let us not pretend that we have no responsibility here. As public representatives, of course we have a responsibility.
Let us remember that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has to account to the taxpayer for how much of its money it has allocated to this project and why. We do have power on this issue. We should not forget that, and we should not let those in charge of the issue forget it. The Minister could help, and the Department could investigate the issue and look at the series of problems.
Mr Ford agreed with Mr Jim Wilson and me that this whole saga has been a tragedy and that it could be resolved by those people who are currently in charge of it. I have gone further than that: ministerial or departmental direction or advice to the management could have changed the structures rapidly to stop the situation getting out of control.
I say to Mr Ford and Ms Morrice that there comes a time in the affairs of man when we cannot sit on the fence, when we have to stand up and be counted on an issue. There comes a time when we have to say, not that we are taking sides on an issue, but that we are taking the side of what is right for children. We have a choice between what is patently right and the actions that have been taken, which have been blatantly wrong.
The House is not playing the blame game today. We are quite deliberately highlighting our interest in the issue and warning those people who have the responsibility to get on with the job to sort this mess out or else we will have the power, and the duty, to step in.
I therefore commend the motion to the House and repeat my earlier tribute to the work and the tenacity of Tom Hill in the face of the unacceptable pressures on him. I hope that the House will, in some way, send out a signal today to all those involved, telling them to hurry up and resolve this terrible, tasteless dispute that we have had to sample over the last few months. I commend the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the ongoing dispute surrounding the future of the children’s hospice and calls for an early resolution of the issues.
Adjourned at 12.44 pm.